Classes Educate, Shock

This is another news report on another teacher that tries to make a difference - to do something different and imaginative to keep students interested (or at least, awake) during physics lessons. This time, he tried to be shocking:

"Ooh hoo, yes, good day!" Morse shouted yesterday as a spark leapt to his hand from a primitive battery during a duplication of 18th-century electric experiments at the Johns Hopkins University. "This is just the right size of shock to give a student."

I've already mention that I strongly admire physics teachers that try to do something different and unusual to keep the students interest in the subject matter. The fact that the system doesn't care if they do this or not. All they need to be is "adequate". Yet, some of these teachers come up with a range of imaginative ideas and things to do to stimulate interest in physics. I consider these people as some of the most valuable resources we have, and I will continue to highlight them whenever I come across news items on them.

Zz.

Fermilab and Argonne National Laboratory Were Damaged In The Budget Fight Between President Bush And Congress

We are nothing more than pawns, and these people simply do not care on the consequences of their actions.

The Chicago Tribune has a long article on how the budget fight between the US Congress and President Bush has harmed and even damaged not only Argonne and Fermilab, but also US science and its competitive edge. It's political warefare, and science becomes the victim. This view is consistent with the e-mail sent out by the APS about a week ago:

Dear APS Members:

Although several thousand APS members responded to the last alert on federal science funding, the communications failed to affect positively what ultimately became a highly partisan appropriations process. To attempt to rectify the damage caused by the Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) Omnibus Appropriations Bill, APS President Arthur Bienenstock will soon be asking you to e-mail your Members of Congress urging that they take emergency action early in the next session. But first, a summary of what is known and documented:

Two weeks ago, almost three months into the new fiscal year, Congress finally passed an FY08 budget - unfortunately, it is devastating to significant programs in the physical sciences. It represents a dramatic turnabout in a time of unprecedented outspoken support for science across party lines, legislative chambers and branches of government.

Science funding in FY08 was originally set to increase substantially. Consistent with the America COMPETES Act, President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and the Democratic Innovation Agenda, the National Science Foundation would have received a 10 percent increase; the National Institute of Standards and Technology Core Programs, a 17 percent increase; and the Department of Energy's Office of Science, an 18 percent increase. The increases represented the beginning of a 10-year plan to double federal investment in physical science and engineering research.

Early in the summer, the House passed all 12 appropriations bills that cover discretionary spending, totaling $955 billion. By early October, the Senate Appropriations Committee had acted on many of them, but the Senate leadership did not bring any of them to the floor for a vote. President Bush had already warned that he would veto appropriations bills if, in the aggregate, they exceeded his $933 billion ceiling. Two weeks ago, responding to the President's veto threat, Congress, having already passed the Defense appropriations bill, rewrote and passed the remaining FY08 budget bills as an omnibus spending package.

The Omnibus Bill is a disaster for the very sciences that our political leaders have repeatedly proclaimed essential for our national security, economic vitality and environmental stewardship. Several reports have suggested a picture less bleak, but they do not take into account the effects of either earmarks or inflation. In fact, numerous programs will have to be trimmed or canceled.

Hundreds of layoffs, furloughs and project shutdowns at Fermilab, SLAC, LBNL and other national laboratories and research universities seem unavoidable. U.S. funding for the International Linear Collider project will be curtailed for the balance of the fiscal year, placing extraordinary stress on the high-energy physics program. FY08 funding for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) will be zeroed out, abrogating our agreement with our European and Asian partners. User facilities will see reductions in operating time and staff, and university research will contract. The list is long and the damage significant.

How could this happen, given the strong bipartisan support for science research and education? There is much speculation that with negotiations having broken down and the President adamant on the total spending, Democratic leaders made the following assessment: First, that there were insufficient votes to override a presidential veto of their spending plans. Second, since the Senate had failed to act on the appropriations in a timely fashion, Democrats would be blamed for any government shutdown that might result from a spending stalemate. Their strategy was to accede to the President's $933 billion bottom line, but, to get there, "by whacking GOP priorities" as the Associated Press reported on December 10. So, with ACI carrying a presidential label, much of the increases for NSF, DOE Science and the NIST labs were erased to meet the budget restrictions. Since ITER was seen as one of the top Administration's priorities, its entire funding was zeroed with strong language to prevent reprogramming of funds to save the project. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) suggested that the $9.7 billion in earmarks be removed to allow funding for other priorities, but his colleagues refused to go along.

Added to this calculus is a well-known fact: Science has rarely, if ever, been a factor in determining the outcome of an election. Even for scientists, funding for research and education most often is not a major determinant in whom they support -- unlike members of other interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association or the American Medical Association, who frequently vote based on their "special" interests. Given such a history and the hard-ball politics that played out this month, letters from scientists to their Members of Congress, unfortunately, did not rule the day.

When Congress returns later this month, Members may be more receptive to listening to their science constituents. We will be sending you another alert next week, after we have determined that the landscape is more favorable. Please respond when we contact you. Your voice may well make the difference at that time.

Sincerely,

Michael S. Lubell
Director of Public Affairs
The American Physical Society

I have posted earlier of the letter-writing campaign. If you are a US resident and are concerned about what is going on here, I urge you to follow the link and let your representatives hear about it.

Note that if you think that only high energy physics and nuclear physics are the ones affected, think again. ALL the US DOE National Laboratories have a 1% reduction. And means that various facilities such as synchrotron light sources where many different types of research is done, even by various private companies, will have reduction in operational days. Previous research plans will now either have to be changed or scrapped. So the collateral damage is extensive.

Zz.

Science And Engineering Indicators 2008

If there's anything that gives the most accurate measure of the state of science and engineering in the US (and even a large part of the world), it is the Science and Engineering Indicators (SAEI). It is published by the National Science Board under the US National Science Foundation.

I have previously put the SAEI 2006 in the links section of this blog. It is great news that the latest version of this research for 2008 has been released. So check out the voluminous SAEI 2008. The best that can be said about the state of science in the US: stagnant, while China especially is accelerating at unbelievable pace.

Pay attention also, as in SAEI 2006, on the public perception and understanding of science and technology. Has it changed? Is it more discouraging that more than half of the people simply do not see anything wrong with the teaching of creationism/ID along side evolution?

You will need several days to read the whole thing.

Zz.

Leaving a Lab Gracefully

I don't know if Science timed this to appear around this time on purpose, or if this is a mere coincidence. Still, this is a rather thoughtful and timely article on what one should do and consider when leaving a place of work. This is rather appropriate right now with several US National Labs laying off people and voluntary attrition due to the budget cutbacks. In this article, the focus is more on leaving a research laboratory, although the advice given is pretty generic to apply to almost anyone.

Zz.

Ultracold Atomic Gases in Optical Lattices:

This is just a monstrous volume of a review on the topic of ultracold atoms in optical traps. It has been published in Adv. Phys. v.56, p.243 (2007), but you can get a copy of it from arXiv.

Might be something you want to read before you go to bed. :)

Zz.

Presidential Race Needs Science Debate

I am so glad that the popular media are now slowly (very slowly) picking up on this). This news report is endorsing a science debate that is being advocated by ScienceDebate2008 among the candidates for the next US Presidency.

The next president faces difficult, historic decisions in science and technology that will shape our country's future for decades to come.

That's why voters should support a bipartisan effort now gaining steam to hold a presidential science debate.

A grassroots group called Science Debate 2008 is pushing for a televised debate sometime after the Feb. 5 primaries to plumb the candidates' views on energy and the environment, technological and scientific innovation, and medicine.

I would add another topic of discussion there: "Should an elected official's religious views superseded established scientific understanding in decided public policies?"

That last one should ruffle a few feathers! :)

Zz.

Drell Talks SLAC, Budget Challenge

I don't envy Persis Drell right now. She doesn't even get a "honeymoon" period after being appointed the new Director of SLAC. Immediately, she's thrown into a budget crisis and had to make severe cuts to SLAC's workforce.

This news report is an interview with Drell where she talks about the budget challenge, SLAC, and a bit about her life.

Zz.

50 Years of The Physical Review Letters

Anyone working in physics knows that Physical Review Letters (PRL) is one of the most prestigious journals to get published in. In fact, in high energy physics, it is THE most prestigious journal to published in (since I it appears that high energy physicists, especially experimentalists, seem to have an unofficial "boycott" of Nature and Science).

In any case, PRL will turn 50 this year (2008). So you can expect them doing a few special things to mark this occasion. One of the things they are doing already is to highlight some of the important, milestone papers from the past. "Letters from the Past - A PRL Retrospective" lists papers that have made significant impacts, even some time winning the author a Nobel Prize. The best part about this is that you can access these papers for free. More papers will be added to the list, so check back regularly.

So while the actual date is still a ways away, let me send out my early wish and say "Happy Birthday, PRL!"

Zz.

UK Government Was Warned of Physics Crisis

A report just published in Nature's daily science update indicates that the UK Govt. was warned about the possible consequences of the funding level for physics.

The documents show that the council described a flat-cash scenario to the government in July 2007, months before the budget allocation, as resulting in "retrenchment" with "facility operations at [a] significantly reduced level" and "severely constrained exploitation grants".

This means that they knew what they were doing and what would happen, and they still went ahead and did it? Oy vey!

Zz.

Funding Edict for Mission has NASA Over a Barrel

Too bad this isn't about the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer.

It seems that Congress, in its infinite wisdom (and probably some very effective lobbying as well), has somehow directed NASA to spend more money that it has allocated for the Space Interferometry Mission. Frankly, I'm shocked that any science mission got 3 times more money than planned, considering that the rest of science, and especially high energy and nuclear physics, got shafted.

I don't know whether this is just more proof that how science is funded here in the US is completely ridiculous, but it certainly looks very silly right now. At what point is something funded based on scientific merit? Why bother having steering committees and all that if lawmakers aren't going to listen to them?

Zz.

Raymond Orbach Responds to DOE Budget Crisis

Ray Orbach, undersecretary for science at the U.S. Department of Energy, sat down with Adrian Cho and Eli Kintisch Science journal to talk about the US physics budget debacle.

He's in a difficult position, I'm sure. He has to follow the "will" of the US Congress, no matter how silly it is. So he has no choice but to tow the "party" line, while trying to salvage whatever's left of the US science program.

You can read the interview and judge for yourself. Frankly, I'm not optimistic that things will get better with FY09. This is one of the few times that I would be glad to be wrong.

Zz.

Pope Cancels University Speech

Whoa! Those physicists and students at Rome's La Sapienza University can kick some ass!

:)

The Pope canceled a planned speech at La Sapienza University after an emeritus physics professor protested to highlight the current pope's attempt to "... subordinate science and reason to faith".

I'm more impressed that they can get that organized and get such large number of support. I'm guessing there was already a built-in opposition to the Pope and the Catholic Church, and this was simply an opportunity for the more radical student body to participate in.

We don't get to see that many physicists or physics students self-organizing like this to actually be effective. The last one I can recall was when a number of students in Nepal protested to be able to study physics in their university. That one also got a wide coverage over the world and resulted in more accessible physics education for them.

Now, if only high energy physicists and nuclear physicists can get organized to protest this Omnibus bill.... hey, that's what the letter-writing campaign is for!

Zz.

The ITER Misadventure

I've highlighted many consequences of the budget cutbacks on high energy physics (Fermilab, SLAC), but let's not forget that the other project that got hit pretty hard is the US contribution to ITER. In fact, the language of the Omnibus bill was rather mean-spirited, singling out that the DOE cannot even reshuffle any money out of other programs to make up the funding shortfall for ITER. What kind of scientific vandalism is that?

This news article describes the current situation as far as the US share in ITER is concerned. In this case, and in the case of ILC, it is the US credibility in upholding what it has agreed to that is the issue.

Sauthoff reiterated Orbach's concern that funding cuts by Congress and other, previous snubs have damaged U.S. credibility as a reliable science partner on the world stage.

Add that to the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer debacle, and you have the US as an unreliable partner. The US Congress should be proud to take full credit for this.

Zz.

Science: Funding Cuts Threaten Scientific Research

This is a very profound essay written by Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, on the recent funding cuts in the United Kingdom.

The sad thing here is that, one could almost transpose this essay with a few changes in names and situations, and it would appropriate to the US as well. As Brian Foster of Oxford University said, it is "scientific vandalism".

Zz.

An Interview With Steven Weinberg

Oh, I just LOVE this! :)

The Space Review has an interview with Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, and he aimed dead center at the International Space Station and the current Administration obsession of human space travel.

Steve Weinberg told a dark energy workshop in September that, “I see on the part of the president and the administrators of NASA… an infantile fixation on putting people into space, which has little or no scientific value.”

You got to snicker when a piece starts off with that type of paragraph! :)

Notice also the very sharp point he made about the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, which I've mentioned on here. It is INSANE that the one piece of effort that would have justified the scientific existence of the ISS is being dropped in favor of completing the building of the ISS. NASA still hasn't told us what they're building the ISS for. So far, they're simply building it for the same of building it.

You may not agree with him, but you cannot deny that this interview is fascinating.

Zz.

Liverpool University Loosing Millions in Research Grants

Our friends across the pond isn't doing so well either. I've mentioned the similar budget debacle facing UK physics efforts, especially when the complete withdrawal from the ILC. The impact of that budget cuts will be severely felt at Liverpool University.

Liverpool University’s physics department could lose more than £5m over the next three years in what its vice-chancellor has described as a “serious” situation which could force staff cuts.

He and senior academics in physics are lobbying the Government and the Science and Technology Facilities Council [STFC] to try to stop the STFC’s delivery plan being implemented.

You some time wonder if these politicians know what they're doing.

Zz.

My Wizard

Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek pays tribute to Mr. Wizard Don Herbert, who passed away this past June 2007. It is quite amazing to see how these figures can have a direct influence on a generation of kids to pursue science. The same thing happened with Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV show that had many kids going into astronomy.

So I wonder how much damage has "The Elegant Universe" TV show has done to kids into making them pursue String Theory?

OK, OK, I'll stop!

:)

Zz.

In Praise of Science Books

The author of this article makes a rather valid point. Where are all those science books and why has there been only 1 science books included in the New York Times best books of the year/100 notable books since 2004? Could this again reflect the ignorance or lack of appreciation of science (something that I've always accepted to be true)? Are the panel of editors who select these books to be on the list science-illiterate? Or have there been not worthy science books in the last 4 years?

Frankly, I am not surprised by such omission. I mean, when was the last time Oprah has picked a book, or highlighted a book on her show with actual science content? Instead, she promoted "The Secret", which bastardized quantum mechanics as its "scientific justification" for all the mumbo-jumbo it is proposing.

Zz.

U.S. Postal Service Gets Scientific With New Stamps

I mentioned a while back of the next batch of stamps produced by the US Post Office on American Scientists. Wired has the images of these new stamps. They look good, and I'll probably buy them again as I did with the earlier set that contained Richard Feynman.

Again, I'm so glad they recognize John Bardeen. Maybe this will cause some people to look up what this man has done!

Zz.

Please Help Reverse Lack of Science Funding

If you are a US resident (and especially if you are a registered voter) and are concern about the recent budget debacle in the US, please help!

********************
From: Arthur Bienenstock, President, the American Physical Society
To: Members of the American Physical Society
Re: Federal Funding Alert: http://www.aps.org/policy/tools/alerts


I am writing to request that you contact your elected representatives and let them know that the 2008 federal budget deals a devastating blow to basic research. You can make this contact quickly and easily at:
http://www.aps.org/policy/tools/alerts

There, you will find pre-written messages to your Senators, Representatives and President Bush. You may send these letters as they are, modify them, or write your own. While individualizing your letter is not essential, please at least make minor edits to the subject line and the first line of the text of each email so that these emails are more individualized. (See webpage pointers below for further instruction.)

Congress wrapped up the Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) budget just before adjourning for the year. The budget, which wipes out $1 billion in increases approved last summer for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE Science) and the NIST laboratories, does irreparable damage to science and abandons the Innovation/Competitiveness initiatives of Congress and the Administration.

While DOE Science programs received a 2.5 percent increase overall (exclusive of earmarks), they will decline by about one percent after inflation. High-energy physics and fusion will feel the greatest pain. High energy physics will likely have to eliminate hundreds of jobs, halt work on both the NOvA, the next step in neutrino physics at FermiLab and partially furlough many remaining employees. The Omnibus bill for FY08 also stopped R&D on the International Linear Collider project, an international high-precision step beyond the Large Hadron Collider, and zeroed out the U.S. contribution to the international ITER project, designed to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy. These actions are severely damaging to the U.S. standing in the international scientific community.

The NSF, with only a 1.2 percent increase for Research and Related Activities, will lose almost three percent in level of effort after inflation is taken into account. Moreover, with new facility projects coming online, their administrative costs will have to be paid out of the research accounts. As a result, university proposal funding rates will inevitably fall.

The request in the attached letters is to restore that funding in an FY08 supplemental appropriations bill, and to support the FY09 budget at the levels authorized in the COMPETES act, efforts that the APS Washington Office are pursuing with both Congress and the Administration.


WEBPAGE POINTERS:
(1) While individualizing your letter is not essential, we ask that you make minor edits to the subject line and the first line of the text of each email.
(2) If you are a government employee, please do not use government resources to send a communication.
(3) Your browser will take you to a page where you will enter your name and address.
(4) After entering your address, click the “Edit/Send Email button.” A window with an individual email message to the four offices will appear. Click “Send Emails” to transmit the communication.
(5) Electronic submission is preferred.
***************************

Since this was intended for APS members, the letter should be modified accordingly to reflect who you are. Again, individualize it to your case. Please do not underestimate the effectiveness of your letter. It WILL make a difference!

Thank you for your support.

Zz.